11.  The applicant is a foundation existing under the laws of Turkey whose purpose is to provide educational facilities at the Greek Orthodox High School in Fener, Istanbul. It operates in accordance with the provisions of the Lausanne Treaty, which afforded protection to old foundations providing public services for religious minorities. It is one of a number of foundations dating from the Ottoman era. After the proclamation of the Republic it fell under Law no. 2762 of 13 June 1935, by virtue of which it obtained legal personality. In 1936, in accordance with section 44 of that Act, the applicant foundation filed a declaration indicating its aims and its immovable property.
12.  On 10 October 1952 the applicant foundation acquired, by way of donation, title to part of a building situated in Istanbul. That acquisition was based on a certificate issued on 3 October 1952 by the Governor of Istanbul. The relevant part of that certificate read as follows:
“Fener Rum Erkek Lisesi Vakfı is a legal entity authorised to acquire immovable property by virtue of the Foundations Act. It is run by an administrative board consisting of ... Further to a request of 3 October 1952 by the Beyoğlu Land Registry, the present document is issued for the purposes of the transaction concerning immovable property located at ... by virtue of section 2 of the Land Registry Act [Law no. 2644 of 29 December 1934 on the Land Registry – see paragraph 27 below].”
13.  The immovable property in question was subsequently registered at the Land Registry. The applicant foundation duly paid property taxes in respect of its property.
14.  Similarly, on 16 December 1958, the applicant foundation acquired, by purchase, co-ownership of another part of the same building. On 15 November 1958 the Governor of Istanbul had issued the certificate required by section 2 of the Land Registry Act, again indicating that “Fener Rum Erkek Lisesi Vakfı [was] a legal entity authorised to acquire immovable property by virtue of the Foundations Act”. The applicant’s title to that property was accordingly registered at the Land Registry and the relevant property taxes were duly paid.
15.  On 15 July 1992 the Treasury lodged an application with the District Court of Beyoğlu (Istanbul) seeking the annulment of the applicant foundation’s title to the above-mentioned immovable property and the registration thereof in the name of the former owners, by virtue of the established case-law of the Court of Cassation. In support of its application, it argued in particular that the applicant did not have the capacity to acquire immovable property. In addition, given that the property in question was not mentioned in its declaration of 1936, an instrument regarded as the legal foundation constitution (vakıfname) of those establishments in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Cassation, the applicant was not entitled to obtain the relevant title. The Treasury therefore requested that the property be re-registered in the name of its former owner.
16.  On 19 December 1994, further to a request from the District Court, an expert in cartography and land surveys filed a report on the case. Referring to the case-law of the combined civil divisions of the Court of Cassation, as established on 8 May 1974 (see paragraph 28 below), he observed that foundations belonging to religious minorities as defined by the Lausanne Treaty which had not indicated in their constitution a capacity to acquire immovable property were precluded from purchasing or accepting gifts of such property. Consequently, the real estate of such foundations was limited to the property indicated in their constitutions, which had become final with the declarations of 1936. In conclusion, the expert considered that the applicant foundation’s title should be annulled, as it lacked the capacity to acquire immovable property, and that the property in question should be re-registered in the name of its former owners.
17.  Before the District Court, the applicant foundation objected to the characterisation given to the 1936 declarations by the Treasury. It contended in particular that these declarations had been required by the State for the registration of the assets and income of foundations and that they could not be regarded as constitutive instruments. It further argued that such foundations did have the capacity to acquire property, by virtue of the Land Registry Act.
18.  In a judgment of 7 March 1996 granting the request of the Treasury, the District Court ordered both the annulment of the applicant’s title and the re-registration of the property in the name of the former owners. It found in particular as follows:
“As the Treasury stated, the defendant foundation did not indicate in [its] declaration of 1936 ... its [disputed] acquisitions by way of donation and purchase. Thus, as observed in the expert’s report, those acquisitions are devoid of legal basis and must accordingly be struck out of the land register and re-registered in the name of the former owners.”
19.  On 17 April 1996 the applicant foundation appealed to the Court of Cassation. It relied in particular on its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Its appeal was dismissed on 11 June 1996.
20.  On 9 December 1996 the Court of Cassation dismissed an application by the applicant foundation for rectification of the judgment of 11 June 1996.
21.  On 16 October 2000 the applicant foundation submitted a request to the Directorate-General of Foundations (the “Directorate”) for the amendment of its constitution. It sought a new constitutive instrument that would grant it the capacity to acquire immovable property. The request was rejected on 20 October 2000. In the grounds for its decision, relying on the judgment of the combined civil divisions of the Court of Cassation of 8 May 1974, the Directorate observed that the 1936 declarations by foundations of religious communities were to be regarded as the “constitutive instruments” of those establishments and that amendment of those constitutions was impossible for reasons of public policy.
22.  The Government argued that the striking-out of the applicant’s title from the land register did not take place until 2002. In this connection they referred to a decision taken by the Beyoğlu Municipal Council on 13 March 2001 whereby the applicant foundation, as owner, together with its tenant, had been fined for adding an additional storey onto the building without authorisation.